www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Podling releases and ASF policy
Date Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:29:21 GMT

Thanks for your response.

In general that's exactly the same as the IPMC currently votes with the exception of the following:
- inclusion of compiled code
- category X dependancy
- inclusion of category X source code

Which are currently treated as blockers by the IPMC.

I see a contradiction here:

> Blocker: Must be fixed and then revote:
>> - 3rd party Category X or Category B bundled code licenses not listed in LICENSE


> Issue: Release then file a JIRA to fix before next release
>> - Included compiled code (which is Category B/X) [3]

As I can’t see anyone listing a Category X license in LICENSE. Including Category X code
is a common reasons releases get -1 votes, putting a category X license in LICENSE has only
happened a couple of times, so it’s unlikely someone would include GPL code and put the
GPL license in LICENSE, it more common that they include GPL code and don’t mention it in
LICENSE or realise that it cannot be included.

>> Except for some people, who think that most things should be allowed, there seems
to be general agreement in the IPMC on this list, except for allowing compiled code or having
a category X dependency in a podling release.
> clr: this statement is a bit ambiguous

The only things that in general IPMC people don’t seem to agree on is having a category
X dependancy or allowing compiled code in a release which this currently thread is suggesting
to allow. (If we put aside the the everything is allowed position.)

>> Votes on releases on the IPMC general list also confirm this. Some people have expressed
the view that as long as it is legal it is allowed, but it unclear if that means full compliance
with 3rd party licenses or not. In a few cases, things from this list have been allowed with
permission from V.P legal / V.P incubator.
> clr: I think we all agree that getting special permission should be a last resort because
by definition it delays a release

Yep that’s currently the case. The cases when it been asked for has been having a category
X dependancy or inclusion. I’m not sure what other situations would require it if theses
things are allowed.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message